Commentary to the article 11 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On limited and additional liability partnership"
Keywords:
limited liability partnership, shareholder rights, judicial practice, rights of the shareholder, rights to participate in management, rights to receive information, rights to receive income, rights to challenge the decision of managementAbstract
The article provides comments on the basic rights of a shareholder of a limited liability partnership, enshrined in article 11 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On limited and additional liability partnership". In particular, by author was analyzed such rights of the shareholder as the right to participate in management, the right to receive information, the right to receive income, the right to appeal decisions of management. By using such headings as "Actual problem" and "Foreign practice", the author pays attention to actual issues of local law enforcement practice and gives examples of solving these issues in the Russian law. In this comment, the author, on the example of a number of corporate disputes that took place in the local judicial practice, analyzes the scope of rights transferred from the former shareholder to the new shareholder of a limited liability partnership and offers solutions to actual issues of law enforcement practice.
The article pays attention to the logical inconsistency of the position of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, expressed on the implementation of the shareholders right to receive information. Difficulties of realization of the right of the shareholder to receive income from activity of partnership are highlighted. The author draws attention to the fact that among corporate disputes, the dispute on appealling the decisions of the management bodies of the partnership is one of the most common disputes in practice. The author also considers the issues of appealling the decisions of management bodies and transactions of limited liability partnership concluded on the basis of these decisions. In addition, the author provides examples from local judicial practice, confirming the impossibility of the transition of the right to appeal to a new shareholder